” At CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, one thing is apparent: there’s a real youth movement happening. If the enthusiasm of these young people is any indication, our next generation is passionate about the future of our country.”

Click here if you want more information about signing up for one of our leadership positions.”

Bookmark this page and check back often to learn of the progress being made in retaking possession of our government . For the uninitiated go here to learn more about the Convention Of States :

” We see four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government.

These abuses are not mere instances of bad policy. They are driving us towards an age of “soft tyranny” in which the government does not shatter men’s wills but “softens, bends, and guides” them. If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming, as Alexis de Tocquevill warned in 1840, nothing more than “a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840) “

The four main abuses are :

1. The Spending and Debt Crisis

2.The Regulatory Crisis

3. Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

4. Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process

Learn more here and you can watch this very informative video which provides a concise overview of the Convention Of States movement .

Article V of the Constitution describes the amendment process which can be accomplished in one of two ways . Since Congress is corrupt and can not be expected to make the changes necessary to lessen their own power , that leaves the second method , which the Founders were so prescient in recognizing the need for … granting the states the power to force the Federal Congress to abide by the Constitution . Below is the text of Article V:

” The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

” Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.[1]

Amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

Given the state of political corruption and the “old boy” network ruling the halls of power in DC , invoking Article V from the Convention of States point of view would seem to be the most promising hope for bringing about real change in the power structure of this nation and returning us to the principles of limited government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and restoring us to a Constitutional Republic .

” A Virginia license plate with the Tea Party-embraced “Don’t Tread on Me” logo is a big seller, suggesting the movement remains popular, at least in the state, even after a tough loss in this year’s gubernatorial election.

At least five other states also sell the specialty plates: Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. But in Virginia, the tag ranks No. 2 among such plates approved in the past five years and ninth among more than 200 total.

The tag was issued to roughly 21,800 Virginia-registered vehicles in just the first 20 months of sales, according to state figures reported by The Virginian-Pilot newspaper.

The sales figures for the “Don’t Tread on Me” plates indicate more than just Tea Party members are buying them, which Dwyer suggests is an indication the movement’s mantra of less-government and no new taxes resonates with many Americans.”

” Fox News’ Brit Hume has about one of the fairest assessments of the tea party out there. Hume explains why the tea party is going to extraordinary lengths to attempt to roll back government, and why that makes the tea party different from establishment Republicans.

Hume argued that tea party supporters are using an unconventional approach because the GOP has “utterly failed” to restrain the growth of government:

“Veteran political observers on both the left and right are still trying to figure out what the House Tea Party caucus and its Senate pied piper Ted Cruz were thinking when they insisted on using the threat of a government shutdown to defund ObamaCare. “

We’re a nation that was founded by principled revolutionaries who took on the super power of their day over almost insignificant taxes they felt Britain had no right to levy. These men were small government fanatics who felt very comfortable with God, guns, and taking care of themselves. The principles those men put in place and the standards they set were what helped turn America into the most successful nation that has ever existed on God’s green earth.

In a time when our nation is engaged in unsustainable economic policies that seem likely to put an end to America’s run as a great nation, perhaps it’s time to consider whether our real problem is that we’ve veered so far from the most successful blueprint for a country ever devised that the Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they found out about….

1) Not just 15% of Americans being on food stamps, but the existence of a food stamp program.

2) Forcing Americans to buy health insurance via Obamacare as a condition of American citizenship.

Even Alexander Hamilton would undoubtedly express shock. After all, he was one of the first Constitution defenders to point out the limits of federal supremacy in Federalist 33.

Thirteen independent sovereign political societies came together to form the United States, delegating specific powers to a general government. Both supporters and opponents of the Constitution agreed the new government was to remain limited. The ratification debate revolved around one question: Would the Constitution create the limited government intended?

When anti-federalists insisted the government wouldn’t remain constrained, Madison countered that the states would serve as a check. In Federalist 46, he wrote that state “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” and “legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions” would serve to “present obstructions.”

” (Breitbart) – John McCain may have finally lost it. In an interview with Huffington Post he referred to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as “wacko birds.”

“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.” Asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing ”Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”

In the long three decades McCain has served in Washington DC, we can’t find any time he’s referred to any other colleagues, past or present, as “wacko birds.” Not Nancy Pelosi. Not Barbara Boxer. Not Al Franken. Not Robert Byrd. Not Sheila Jackson Lee. Not Hank Johnson. Not Patrick Leahy. Not Robert Menendez. Not Bernie Sanders. Not Dennis Kucinich. Not Jim Wright. Not Anthony Weiner. Not Alan Grayson. Not Carol Moseley Braun. Not Dick Durbin. Not Chuck Schumer. Not Harry Reid.”

Thanks for your service John … It’s time for you to go home once and for all and take your RINO buddy Graham with you .

If being men of principle makes the “wacko birds” we say let’s have some more .

” In a recent survey done by NSON, a non-partisan polling agency, Americans identified with the Tea Party principles of limited government, free markets and personal responsibility by a margin of 2-to-1 over the progressive principles of big government, higher taxes, more spending, more regulations and more government programs.

In the poll, 47.8% of respondents identified with “Tea Party principles” while 20.6% of respondents identified with “progressive principles.” Another 22.8% responded “Neither/Other/Somewhere in the middle” and 8.8% responded “Don’t know.” The poll did not ask for respondents’ party affiliations, but it did identify their genders and geographic locations. The poll has a margin of error of 4.38%.”

I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.”

” Lost in all the post-election analysis was a much larger and more cynically brilliant Obama us-and-them campaign that created the image of a shrinking, geriatric white male plutocratic establishment forced to give way to the new age of the diverse “other.” Affluent Asians, blacks, Latinos, gays, women, etc., supposedly had beef with Republicans and were brilliantly united by Obama in vague resentment against “them.”

In this regard, Republicans have to focus on a more populist approach that ensures their message of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong defense, and more freedom appeals to those on the receiving end of government largesse. Free-market conservatives do best when they appear naturally as part of the working or small-business class and can’t be caricatured as elevator-owning grandees–and when they mix it up and take their licks in trying to appeal to those who probably won’t vote for them. ”

Wake Up America

The Forgotten Man

Do yourself a favor a explore Mr McNaughton’s website and his work . Some of his works are even displayed on interactive webpages that allow you learn exactly who and what is being portrayed and why in the artist’s own words . It is a very impressive body of work and needs to be seen by all freedom loving Americans who are weary of “p**s-filled” jars and elephant dung being passed off as typical American art .We will leave you with one last taste of Mr McNaughton’s creative genius .

This is a screenshot of one of his interactive webpages . As you mouse over the various figures in the painting the box in the upper right corner will give you a description of who and what EVERY character in the painting is and represents .

Mr McNaughton goes so far as to address criticism , typically from the Left , of his works and to explain his thought processes involved with the creation of individual works .

McNaughton’s response to liberal criticisms of “One Nation Under God.”

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.

Each figure including Christ represents a symbol. Everything about the painting is symbolic. I don’t pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would instantly be recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way.

The figures in the background have been the source of great debate. Let me make myself clear from my writing that just because they stand behind Christ, does not mean they are devout Christians evoking all to come unto Jesus and be baptized?! What I am saying is that they represent those who have influenced our country and our Constitution in a positive way. Many of these men and women gave their lives so we could have the liberties we enjoy. We are now at a time when these liberties are in peril. Our government has grown so big and powerful that the rights of the individual are at risk. This is what the Constitution was about—to limit the size of government. The patriotic heroes who stand behind Christ and the Constitution are pleading with us to defend the cause of liberty. Except for the pregnant woman in the lower right corner, these people symbolize those who have pushed our country towards Socialism. (The pregnant woman’s place in the painting is explained on the website.)

In connection to my last statement, I knew when I painted this picture that Thomas Payne (so sorry I offended some of you for spelling his name wrong), and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. That was irrelevant to me. I believe God brings about His purposes through different people. Even those who aren’t baptized or following the accepted Christian religion.

Not only have I received flack for this painting from Liberals, but also from the Right as well. Why did you include JFK? Why Lincoln? Why Teddy Roosevelt? I painted this picture to reflect my personal feelings about America. This is not a Republican painting. This is not anything other than one artist’s personal feelings about his love for Christ, this country and a desire to make a point about where we are headed. I hoped that this painting would encourage dialogue and debate. It is important that you understand my position before you make assumptions.

One of the most ridiculous criticisms I have read is that I don’t have enough minorities in the painting. The way people throw around the word “racist” these days is overkill. From the beginning of the painting I chose to include a variety for ethnicities under the “Strong Americans” category. I also used different races in the background where I could. One of the most important positions in the painting is where the black U. S. soldier is standing.

Some of the chatter going around on these liberal blog sites I feel is unfounded. One of the things I said to myself from the beginning was the knee jerk reaction some people would have to the painting would be very revealing as to which side they personally stood in the picture. If you don’t believe the Constitution was inspired of God, fine. We will agree to disagree.

Some so called “art experts” feel that a true painting should not be explained, but left to the viewer to interpret. I may not reveal all my thoughts, but I want the world to know what I think and feel—that’s why I painted it! Great art causes one to feel. To feel deeply. I knew this painting would evoke emotion on both sides. I knew it was a unique concept, having never been painted before. I don’t care if the composition is outdated or whether some other artist may have painted their composition better than me. The message stands alone.

Why Satan? I don’t for a second believe he looks like that, but I do believe he is real. Again, the image is symbolic. Having Satan near these people doesn’t mean that they are Satanic. If you believe in God, surely you would believe in a Satan.

OK, how could McNaughton be so ignorant about Charles Darwin and “Origin of the Species?” Yes, I have read the book and yes I do believe in many of the theories it espouses. What?! No, I don’t’ think the book should be burned and kicked out of the school curriculum. Some of the rebuttals I have heard in regard to this subject in my painting are unfounded. I believe that this book is a standard that the left uses to push Christianity out of the Educational Forum. I believe that we need faith in our schools. I believe that I did not evolve from an ape. You may disagree, but that is how I feel. Do I believe Evolution should be taught? Yes. Should Christian thought or any other religion be allowed to be discussed without reservation? Yes, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

This is my personal witness and testimony as to the state of this nation. If you would like to ask more questions about my painting, I invite you to do so. I would be pleased to answer any honest questions regarding, “One Nation Under God.”

” Of course, the well meaning, but naïve, people who believe the problem lies in the private ownership of firearms are out there beating the drum, while those whose purposes are not as noble are leading the way and self-serving politicians are coming out of the woodwork just itching to pass another meaningless piece of feel-good legislation that will mean about as much to illegal gun owners as the ones already on the books now.

Our problem is not a lack of gun laws; we have enough now to paper the south wall of the Grand Canyon. We just need to enforce them.

How about we start at the top by forcing Eric Holder to tell the truth about Fast and Furious?

How about we bust the people who deal guns out of the trunks of their cars on inner city street corners?

How about the Obama administration setting an example about how it should be done by cleaning up his hometown of Chicago, a city with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. Where law-abiding citizens can’t buy a handgun for protection, but street thugs have no problem at all.

I will be the first to admit that, like in every other business, there are unscrupulous gun dealers who do things they know are wrong and put guns in the hands of people who will either use them offensively or sell them to others who will.

They should be identified and put out of business, period.

I am aware there are areas that need cleaning up, but another unenforced law is not going to make any difference. ”

” This documentary exposes the blatant trampling of the Constitutional rights of Americans during white collar crime investigations by the Department of Justice and the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service .

It is about the increasing number of unconstitutional, para-military, gestapo style raid tactics involving two agencies of the federal government.”

” The attached article seeks to provide cover for those who would happily do away with the rule of law in this country. That the idea that trashing the Constitution, probably the greatest document of human liberation there has ever been, is given prime ink in the Times is no joke. We should be paying very close attention.

(From The New York Times)

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care?

We should care because the Constitution was written to make things difficult to get done. That’s the point. It seeks to restrict government fundamentally and that is why people like professor Seidman are for throwing it into the dustbin of history. They want the shackles (such as they remain at all) off. They want the state to be able to do whatever the state wants to do, whenever it wants to do it. ”

” Five-nine percent said the United States needs bigger government, while 37 percent responded that the government is doing too many things that should be left up to individuals and the private sector. Furthermore, 53 percent said the government needs to expand its role in health care.

“The rise in young people embracing paternalistic government comes as no shock,” said Gabriella Hoffman, a field coordinator for the Leadership Institute, in an interview with the Daily Caller. “Most have developed contempt for free enterprise and limited government from their college professors who inject anti-free market, socialist and even Marxist views into their lectures.”

As we’ve perused last week’s election returns, we’d noticed a number of races where Libertarian candidates appear to have played spoiler for Republicans—certainly, more than we’re accustomed to. While we haven’t run a comparison with prior cycles, we’ve identified no fewer than nine contests in 2012 where the Libertarian received more votes than the difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates. What’s more, none of these involved the typical 1 or maybe 2 percent you ordinarily expect a Lib to garner: Looking at the three-way vote, all but one were over 3 percent, and three took 6 percent or more, with a high of 6.5 percent in the Montana Senate race. These definitely seem like unusually high figures.

So what’s going on here? I wouldn’t want to speculate too much based on this limited data set. But I could easily believe that a growing proportion of conservative-leaning voters are too disgusted with the GOP to pull the Republican lever, but who won’t vote for Democrats either, are choosing a third option and going Libertarian instead. This thesis dovetails with something else we saw this year: independents generally leaning more rightward simply because at least some former Republicans are now refusing to identify with their old party. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that some folks like that don’t want to vote for their old party either.

From The Rio Norte Line which graciously provides a choice collection of videos featuring Paul Ryan . View them all for a look at a serious man who understands the issues facing this country .

” I’m pretty excited about Romney’s
choice. These are two serious men who understand what needs to be done to correct our downward trajectory.

Compare the moral conviction, the
strength and intellect, the competence of these two, their devotion to their religions, their devotion to their families, their connection to reality and their
honesty to the two on the other side.

An interesting take on the similarities and differences between the Occupiers and the Teapartiers .

“In truth, money is not the problem. Restricting the flow of money into politics only redirects cronyism. It doesn’t stop it. The real problem is what is for sale.
Government is force. That is its essential and exclusive quality. Government has the unique capacity to lawfully coerce behavior. When that capacity is unmoored from justice, it becomes
available to the highest bidder. That is what has happened in America. Lobbyists and donors are
lined up to purchase the initiation of force against their economic and political competitors. Winners get to wield a club with which to
bludgeon others into submission. Losers are S.O.L.
That is why constitutionally limited government is so important, and why Tea Partiers are so
enamored with the Founding and all its historical trappings. Limiting the state’s power to strictly
defined roles prevents regulatory capture and other forms of cronyism. ”

I’m not sure that I share the author’s notion that the brighter Occupiers may well evolve into and come to see the wisdom of the Teapartier’s view of power/authority . It seems to me that the fundamental difference separating the two factions is one of personal responsibility . Whereas personal responsibility is , to my mind , the driving force for the right/teaparty/libertarian faction as manifested in our founding principles , the Occupiers seem to feel that everything is someone else’s fault ala Obama . Obama is the perfect example of the left’s facination with collective blame/shirking of personal responsibility . The under-carriage of his bus is mighty cramped right about now . This divide would seem to be an unbridgable chasm given the Occupiers desire for entitlements for all and the Teaparty’s goal of entitlements for none . We shall see .